Old vs New Congress...PayGo vs CutGo

[audtatious]

The Dem controlled Congress made it widely known that they would follow PayGo, or a "Pay as you Go" philosophy in regards to passing budget bills and such when they took over. We all know that was a complete failure as their PayGo only affected certain budges and had so many holes in it that GM could have drove each dealership through it.

The GOP has proposed CutGo "Cut as you Go" philosophy in which any additional money required in legislation will require a cut of an existing program to pay for it.

While the GOP method may slow spending somewhat, with how many loopholes at what size I don't know, it does nothing to curb spending from our current deficit. Gov budget does not shrink and neither does the size of Gov. Both of those are needed to get the size of Govt under control.

So, do the Conservatives on this board support CutGo as a proper direction or do you want deep cuts? Will the Dems on this board support methodology to shrink Gov or will they support Dems becoming the party of "no"? If that is the case then what do you want the Gov to become and where should it lead?

[bigbadberry3]

Keep it simple. Everyone's budget down 10%. Next year take off another 5% of the reduced budget.

[audtatious]

The US budget for 2011 is 3.83 trillion. We are in debt by 13.5 trillion. Last year we paid $414 billion in interest on our debt and 2011 will be higher. If we lower the whole budget by 10% (383 billion) it would not encompass enough to even pay the interest, thus, we go further into debt.

[bigbadberry3]

It was just a number I threw out there arbitrarily off the top of my head. Make the number big enough to wash out the interest at least which works out to about 11% ? Stop bleeding interest first, get adjusted to the cut, and work from there.

[audtatious]

I'd say 20% but there are a whole lotta people who would absolutely choke with trying to push forth a 20% reduction.

[telcoman]

The US budget for 2011 is 3.83 trillion. We are in debt by 13.5 trillion. Last year we paid $414 billion in interest on our debt and 2011 will be higher. If we lower the whole budget by 10% (383 billion) it would not encompass enough to even pay the interest, thus, we go further into debt.

By not returning to the tax rates prior to the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250k adds another trillion to the deficit.
Keep in mind that Clinton left office with a budget surplus
Bush sqandered the surplus giving tax cuts to the rich.
Then he gave us two unpaid for wars.
Then he added an unpaid for Medicare Drug Plan that was a gift to the drug companies by failing to negotiate drug prices.

Why are you now surprised at the mounting debt.

Where were you when Bush started the debt ball rolling?

Telcoman

[bigbadberry3]

Or what is now the largest government entity, Homeland Security.

[audtatious]

By not returning to the tax rates prior to the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250k adds another trillion to the deficit.

That damn Obama. WTH is HE thinking...

Keep in mind that Clinton left office with a budget surplus

What surplus?
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Bush sqandered the surplus giving tax cuts to the rich.

What surplus?

Then he gave us two unpaid for wars.

Ah, so Congress did not approve?

Then he added an unpaid for Medicare Drug Plan that was a gift to the drug companies by failing to negotiate drug prices.

Dunno, will let someone more familiar with it comment.

Why are you now surprised at the mounting debt.

With the Gov we have, I'm not. I'm also not surprised that you will put it all at the GOP door and ignore your own party. You are good at that.

Where were you when Bush started the debt ball rolling?

I guess I just turned a blind eye because of how partisan I am.

[bigbadberry3]

I'm just going to ignore the Clinton era debate because a quick Google supports some parts of both of your arguments. On a tangent, I thought the "new congress" was going to act on the economy and not bunker down for yet more battle on healthcare. I find this really redundant as healthcare and its debate is now being settled in the courts and doesn't need to be reopened by Congress. I just want to see some progress in more important areas and not beat a dead horse.

[stebo0728]

I'm just going to ignore the Clinton era debate because a quick Google supports some parts of both of your arguments. On a tangent, I thought the "new congress" was going to act on the economy and not bunker down for yet more battle on healthcare. I find this really redundant as healthcare and its debate is now being settled in the courts and doesn't need to be reopened by Congress. I just want to see some progress in more important areas and not beat a dead horse.

That horse is not as dead as you think, and killing healthcare reform in its current state IS beneficial to the economy. No doubt some reform is necessary, but mandates, overbearing 1099 requirements, those sorta things are NOT conducive to fixing the problem, and the healthcare bill NEEDS repealing if for no other reason than "it was passed to see what was in it". I realize the repeal has no real chance of success because of the still democratically infested senate, but it sets the stage for the Dems to block the repeal of what anyone with half a brain realizes was a mistake, and that creates opposition toward the people, and will create further dissent in the ranks of the left; at least thats the idea anyway

[audtatious]

I, too, do not want to see the Gov spend the next 6 months focusing solely on killing the "can't call it ObamaCare" HC initiative. Jobs and economy should be a major focus as well and it's something the Dems have ignored these last two years other than throwing out more stimulus.

[bigbadberry3]

I realize the repeal has no real chance of success because of the still democratically infested senate

True, so let the courts and their lawyers decide the legalities and not waste Congress's time having the same debates they held over the previous years and get to work on the economy and other pressing matters.

[audtatious]

Dems just need to have a SCOTUS judge taken out so all rulings go their way 5-4. Which, IMO, is disturbing that the Constitutionality of a law is viewed upon such partisan lines.

[bigbadberry3]

Or we could try to up the court to 11 and add 2 libbies lol Naw, I just think we need some more moderates as I feel the nation is polarizing itself at an alarming rate (but I'm kind of young, was the US always this divided?).

[telcoman]

(but I'm kind of young, was the US always this divided?).

Only during Viet Nam, Watergate under Nixon, and Bush

Not so much under Clinton

If there was a draft now and when Bush got us into the two unpaid for wars that have dragged on for ten years now then you would really see action in the streets


Telcoman

[R/T Hemi]

So, do the Conservatives on this board support CutGo as a proper direction or do you want deep cuts? Will the Dems on this board support methodology to shrink Gov or will they support Dems becoming the party of "no"? If that is the case then what do you want the Gov to become and where should it lead?

There is a big mistake that shadows any argument re: funding. That is, government gets bigger, day by day, it grows. If government was to actually get smaller, there would be a chance of cuts in spending, but that's not going to happen. It is therefore, impossible to cut a program in order to add one. Great idea though, but when we get another Bush like genius in office, who convinces us that the world is about to end if we don't invade Pakiganistan and slay the dragons of evil. When that happens, we'll have to cut everything, including the military in order to fund the war de jour. Then we'd have to cut the war to hire and train the military.

[audtatious]

two unpaid for wars

Can you show me where, in the past, we have had paid wars?

[audtatious]

So, do the Conservatives on this board support CutGo as a proper direction or do you want deep cuts? Will the Dems on this board support methodology to shrink Gov or will they support Dems becoming the party of "no"? If that is the case then what do you want the Gov to become and where should it lead?

There is a big mistake that shadows any argument re: funding. That is, government gets bigger, day by day, it grows. If government was to actually get smaller, there would be a chance of cuts in spending, but that's not going to happen. It is therefore, impossible to cut a program in order to add one. Great idea though, but when we get another Bush like genius in office, who convinces us that the world is about to end if we don't invade Pakiganistan and slay the dragons of evil. When that happens, we'll have to cut everything, including the military in order to fund the war de jour. Then we'd have to cut the war to hire and train the military.

Yeah, Bush did it all because Saddam threatened his daddy

Good thing we have the savior Obama who has ended the wars, closed Gitmo, fixed HC, and solved our economic problems while his party had a super majority for two years.

Anyway, back to point. You think Gov is bound to grow and grow and there is nothing that can be done? Or do you feel there is nothing that _should_ be done because you agree that Gov should encompass your whole life and dictate your moves?

[R/T Hemi]

Yeah, Bush did it all because Saddam threatened his daddy

I hadn't heard that.

Good thing we have the savior Obama who has ended the wars, closed Gitmo, fixed HC, and solved our economic problems while his party had a super majority for two years.

You say that like they were all bad things? I see two ery positie things in there.

Anyway, back to point. You think Gov is bound to grow and grow and there is nothing that can be done? Or do you feel there is nothing that _should_ be done because you agree that Gov should encompass your whole life and dictate your moves?

No, I think government is a snowball rolling down hill gathering speed, size and momentum. At some point it's going to be impossible to stop if it's not already. Do I agree with that? No,but then, why get run over by it. All I can do is try to direct it in a way that best serves my and my fellow American's needs.

[audtatious]

I hadn't heard that.

You must have not been dealing with anti-Bushies for the last 8 years. He did it cuz of his daddy, cuz he wanted the oil for his buddies, cuz he wanted to start a religious war, cuz the Israelis asked, cuz he cooked the books on WMD's, Dems never supported going to war, he cause katrina, etc etc etc.

Simple case of BDS

Good thing we have the savior Obama who has ended the wars, closed Gitmo, fixed HC, and solved our economic problems while his party had a super majority for two years.

You say that like they were all bad things? I see two ery positie things in there.

The war has not ended, Gitmo is not closed, HC is not fixed, economy is still in the toilet (other than Howies 401k), and the super majority spent 2 years focusing on the wrong ball (IMO at least).

No, I think government is a snowball rolling down hill gathering speed, size and momentum. At some point it's going to be impossible to stop if it's not already. Do I agree with that? No,but then, why get run over by it. All I can do is try to direct it in a way that best serves my and my fellow American's needs.

So, let it do what it's doing and dismiss the effort to get our politicians (as self centered and crappy as they may be) to fix the problem?

[telcoman]

two unpaid for wars

Can you show me where, in the past, we have had paid wars?

After Viet Nam ended it got paid for with a huge run up in inflation with 18% interest rates and a declining value of the dollar

WWll was paid for after the war with a growing and booming housing amd manufacturing market.

Under the 8 years of Bush and the GOP there is no more manufacturing jobs from Pa to Wisconsin except for the jobs Obama saved by bailing out GM and Chrysler

Bush lied and scammed the American people into the war in Iraq.
When Joe Wilson proved there were no WMD his wife was outed as a CIA agent
Scooter Libby was convicted and then pardoned by his buddy Bush
What a corrupt administration that was.

[Jesda]

Someone send this guy a 2011 calendar. He hasn't changed his since 2008!

[audtatious]

Can you show me where, in the past, we have had paid wars?

After Viet Nam ended it got paid for with a huge run up in inflation with 18% interest rates and a declining value of the dollar

WWll was paid for after the war with a growing and booming housing amd manufacturing market.

After, after, after....do you even realize this war is still going on under the current Administration?

Under the 8 years of Bush and the GOP there is no more manufacturing jobs from Pa to Wisconsin except for the jobs Obama saved by bailing out GM and Chrysler

Right, because those places were bastions of jobs up until 2001. Get a grip.

Bush lied and scammed the American people into the war in Iraq.

Prove it. Dems can't or they would have tried to impeach him.

When Joe Wilson proved there were no WMD his wife was outed as a CIA agent
Scooter Libby was convicted and then pardoned by his buddy Bush
What a corrupt administration that was.

What does all this crap have to do with this thread? Pay attention or start your own threads.

[audtatious]

Someone send this guy a 2011 calendar. He hasn't changed his since 2008!

Bush Derangement Syndrome.

[stebo0728]

Telco, seems all the things that paid for the wars you described above were private sector initiatives. Do you think the private sector is weld with enough regard now, but this administration, to be able to do the same? I doubt it, not while profits are demonized, and innovation and ambition are penalized by tax code.

[audtatious]

Private sector is hated by progressives. To them Gov is the only solution.

Funny, I was just listening to a progressive XM station and they said exactly that.

[bigbadberry3]

I don't hate the private sector. I hate that the private sector that has exported jobs out of the US.

[stebo0728]

I don't hate the private sector. I hate that the private sector that has exported jobs out of the US.

Get rid of the minimum wage, and other lame requirements that impede free trade and maybe those jobs will come back. A business man is gonna do whats best for his business, not the country. As a nation we have to offer whats best for his business, if we truly want his business.

[bigbadberry3]

I don't hate the private sector. I hate that the private sector that has exported jobs out of the US.

Get rid of the minimum wage, and other lame requirements that impede free trade and maybe those jobs will come back. A business man is gonna do whats best for his business, not the country. As a nation we have to offer whats best for his business, if we truly want his business.

Hmmm please tell me how we can compete with China and their minimum wage that is less than a dollar per hour as for blue collar type jobs.

[stebo0728]

Stop trying, thats how, we have moved beyond the layman nation of manufacturing, but we have yet to care about continuing education for the next generation enough to grasp our new role, we dont need to compete for those jobs, let em go, our citizens need to produce more marketability for themselves and acquire a higher up rung on the ladder